Quick Take on the Arizona Case

It looks like a mixed bag based on my fast review of the transcript. Based on the questions and interactions, the provisions regarding the police stop provisions look like they stand a better chance than the registration and employment provisions. In essence, those provisions where Arizona police are bringing individuals to the attention of ICE seemed to concern the Justices less than those allowing Arizona to create their own immigration crimes. I'll bet that two provisions survive and two are struck. Could be a 4-4, but even some of the liberal Justices seemed skeptical on the police stop provisions. Of course, the big concern with those provisions are the possibilities for racial profiling and other civil rights abuses and litigation on those grounds are likely. But they would need to wait until the law took force.

Comments

[fraudulent billing attorney]

people living in Arizona come from different ethnicity. however, Mexicans immigrants will be most affected by this law because they form the greatest number of the populace.

[gg]

Analysis of the SB 1070 Oral Arguments heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjNpZX8CDNw

[Another Voice]

""HISPANDERING" may not work ... Hispanics divided on support ..."

I disagree it will work and Obama will likely get these votes, how ever I will also agreed that the numbers of Hispanics going out to vote may be less that in 2008. I would also say that unless they deliver not only the presidency but congress nothing is likely to change at least in Immigration. If we get divided government the staus quo wins!!!

[Another Voice]

Fewer Illegal Immigrants Stopped for Traffic Violations Will Face Deportation

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/us/politics/traffic-violations-wont-earn-illegal-immigrants-deportation.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[gg]

"HISPANDERING" may not work ... Hispanics divided on support ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57423877/hispanic-leaders-divided-on-president-obama/

[Jack]

"They just vote on a party line basis."

Which is why it's so noteworthy that Democratic appointees, including Obama's own appointee, are so skeptical of his administration's argument. Gives you an idea of just how weak it is.

[Jack]

Usually, immigrationists ignore this type of evidence--they just don't want to see it. Incredibly, Colbert shows a chart with U.S. government statistics showing the difference in CO2 emissions and he STILL doesn't get it? He resorts to the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger rather than the message (which in this case happens to be irrefutable). It's not "blaming immigrants for global warming" but pointing out the fact that immigration to the U.S. contributes to global warming. As Gaylord Nelson said, "In this country, it's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.' It's just a fact that we can't take all the people who want to come here."

[USC]

"Your argument — that this systematic cooperation is wrong — is not selling very well. Why don't you try to come up with something else?"

What makes the Arizona law wrong is that it doesn't mandate that the cops must do this for everyone across the board. For instance, if George Bush were stopped he should be subject to an illegal immigrant check and not just Jose Garcia.

As for the SCOTUS, after Bore v Gore they don't have much credibility. They just vote on a party line basis. In the past they have stood for or condoned slavery, the internment of Japanese Americans, deprived the Chinese and others of their citizenship rights and more recently do not feel that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

[Another Voice]

LOL Colbert is awesome!!

Colbert Blasts Study Blaming Immigrants For Global Warming

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/colbert-blasts-study-blam_n_1456326.html?ref=comedy

[gg]

"Americans" put to shame by immigrants on sample civics test

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/54563612?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

[Another Voice]

"Have you noticed that, among Hispanics, the gap on how the two candidates would handle immigration is much narrower than between the two candidates overall?"

By all means I hope the Romney campaign is taking a page from this article Jack....this goes to show how out of touch they are LOL!!

[Jack]

Immigration May Not Be Romney Deal-Breaker For Latinos

http://news.investors.com/article/609306/201204261617/arizona-immigration-law-divides-latino-voters.htm?src=HPLNews

Have you noticed that, among Hispanics, the gap on how the two candidates would handle immigration is much narrower than between the two candidates overall?

[Jack]

"Such a ruling would let police question people about their immigration status if they have good reason to do so"

The Obama administration's lawyer, Donald Verrilli, was asked to explain why a statewide policy about something already routinely done (just not on a statewide basis) should be enjoined. And, oh yeah, there's this little statute 8 USC 1373. Breyer zeroed in on it. Sotomayor even said at one point, "Your argument — that this systematic cooperation is wrong — is not selling very well. Why don't you try to come up with something else?"

[Tobias]

Sen. Charles Schumer promises action on Arizona immigration law
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-schumer-promises-action-on-arizona-immigration-law-20120424,0,7900237.story

WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Arizona immigration law, a top Democrat vowed to take congressional action if the high court upholds the state’s tough-on-immigration statute.

The proposal from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) would surely extend the immigration debate and touch off a states’ rights fight with strong opinions on either side. Should the court uphold Arizona’s SB 1070, Schumer said his proposal would prohibit states from enacting or enforcing their own immigration law penalties unless they are working in concert with the federal government...

[Tobias]

The US Has Finally Done It: Mexican Immigrants Become Emigrants
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-has-finally-done-it-mexican-immigrants-become-emigrants

You know its bad when...the net flow of Mexicans into the US has fallen so much that there is a high probability that it is now in reverse ending around forty years of inward migration. The Pew Hispanic Center notes that the standstill - after more than 12 million current immigrants have entered the US - more than half of whom are illegal - appears to be the result of many factors including a weakened US job and construction market, tougher border enforcement, a rise in deportations, growing dangers associated with border crossing, a long-term decline in Mexico's birth rate, and changing (read perhaps more opportunistic) economic conditions in Mexico (especially if you work at WalMex). This sharp downward trend in net migration has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. - to 6.1 million in 2011, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007. In the five years from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4m Mexicans immigrated to the US – exactly the same number of Mexican immigrants and their US-born children who quit the US and moved back or were deported to Mexico. By contrast, in the previous five years to 2000 some 3m Mexicans came to the US and fewer than 700,000 left it...

[Tobias]

Ariz. Migrant Case Could Lead to Sweeping Changes
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ariz-migrant-case-lead-sweeping-16217385

..."You won't see anything that noticeable as far as law enforcement goes," Horne said. "But you will see less people sneaking across the border."

It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.

Peter Spiro, a Tempe University law professor who specializes in immigration law, predicted the court would uphold the police check of immigration status in Arizona's law, but said he wouldn't be surprised if the court threw out a provision making it a crime to be without immigration documents.

Such a ruling would let police question people about their immigration status if they have good reason to do so, but police would have to call federal authorities to see if they would want to pick up anyone found to be in the country illegally. If federal agents decline, officers would have to release the person, unless they were suspected of committing crimes, Spiro said.

If that happened, the law would be mostly symbolic, but would still carry some significance for immigrants, Spiro said. "It would make it clear that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens," Spiro said...

[Another Voice]

On Arizona immigration law, Justice Scalia and street protesters make same case

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-arizona-immigration-law-justice-scalia-and-street-protesters-make-same-case/2012/04/25/gIQAr6LmhT_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

[Another Voice]

Great point gg but I guess the supremes will not concern themselves with people spending a few days in jail, since we are talking mostly brown people. Besides it is clear that this will be strictly along party lines. The Romney campaign should be deligther Hispanics will blame the Republicans for this no doubt, so there will be implications all over the place.

[gg]

The justices seem to be contradicting themselves. On one hand they seem to believe that AZ should have the authority to arrest people and check their papers on the other hand they also seem to believe that AZ cannot hold those detained indefinitely and its up to the feds to enforce deportation. So basically they are saying feds have the power to decide whom to deport from the country. So where is the point of arresting undocumented people unnecessarily if they are not going to be deported and what purpose does it serve other that wasting tax payers money. The only beneficiary seem to be the private prison lobby.

[Legal and no longer waiting]

So, the justices don't mind a police state, and the more conservative they are, the less they mind it.

[Jack]

"Of course, the big concern with those provisions are the possibilities for racial profiling and other civil rights abuses and litigation on those grounds are likely."

I have always been skeptical that the Supreme Court would be alarmed at possibilities for racial profiling. I'm like, "Have you read any of their decisions about that?" I don't think most 1070 protesters are very familiar with that area of law. They seem to think there is legal protection against profiling which does not exist.

"All [Section 2b] does is notify the Federal Government, here's someone who is here illegally, here's someone who is removable. The discretion to prosecute for Federal immigration offenses rests entirely with the Attorney General." -- Chief Justice Roberts

Didn't I just say on the eve of arguments that it does not take away their discretion? I figured someone would see it that way and notice the obvious flaw in the argument.

"It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not." -- Chief Justice Roberts

Ouch! The truth hurts, doesn't it?

“So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?” Justice Antonin Scalia responded.

I noticed that in the original pleadings: Mexico was singled out.

“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the court’s liberal wing and its first Hispanic justice, told Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., referring to a central part of his argument.

This was predictable yet Judge Bolton enjoined that part anyway.